EXPERIMENT DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION - CORDIS · avl avl list gmbh nabladot nabladot sl biocurve biocurve unizar universidad de zaragoza btech barcelona technical center sl csuc

EXPERIMENT DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION

Deliverable D121.1

Circulation: RE: Restricted to a group specified

by the consortium (including the Commission Services)

Lead partner: HELIC SA Contributing partners: ESS, ATHENA Authors: Giorgos Fikos, Ioannis Emiris,

Charalampos Bakolias Quality Controllers: Charalampos Bakolias Version: 1.0 Date: 05.04.2016

1

©Copyright 2013-2016: The CloudFlow Consortium

Consisting of original partners

Fraunhofer Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics Research, Darmstadt, Germany SINTEF STIFTELSEN SINTEF, Department of Applied Mathematics, Oslo, Norway JOTNE JOTNE EPM TECHNOLOGY AS DFKI DEUTSCHES FORSCHUNGSZENTRUM FUER KUENSTLICHE

INTELLIGENZ GMBH UNott THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM CARSA CONSULTORES DE AUTOMATIZACION Y ROBOTICA S.A. NUMECA NUMERICAL MECHANICS APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL SA ITI ITI GESELLSCHAFT FUR INGENIEURTECHNISCHE

INFORMATIONSVERARBEITUNG MBH Missler Missler Software ARCTUR ARCTUR RACUNALNISKI INZENIRING DOO Stellba STELLBA HYDRO GMBH & CO KG

ESS EUROPEAN SENSOR SYSTEMS SA HELIC HELIC ELLINIKA OLOKLIROMENA KYKLOMATA A.E. ATHENA RC ATHENA RESEARCH AND INNOVATION CENTER IN INFORMATION

COMMUNICATION & KNOWLEDGE TECHNOLOGIES INT INTROSYS-INTEGRATION FOR ROBOTIC SYSTEMS-INTEGRACAO DE SISTEMAS

ROBOTICOS SA SIMPLAN SIMPLAN AG UNI KASSEL UNIVERSITAET KASSEL BOGE BOGE KOMPRESSOREN OTTO BOGE GMBH & CO KG CAPVIDIA CAPVIDIA NV SES-TEC SES-TEC OG AVL AVL LIST GMBH nablaDot NABLADOT SL Biocurve BIOCURVE UNIZAR UNIVERSIDAD DE ZARAGOZA BTECH BARCELONA TECHNICAL CENTER SL CSUC CONSORCI DE SERVEIS UNIVERSITARIS DE CATALUNYA TTS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYSTEM S.R.L. FICEP FICEP S.P.A. SUPSI SCUOLA UNIVERSITARIA PROFESSIONALE DELLA SVIZZERA ITALIANA (SUPSI)

This document may not be copied, reproduced, or modified in whole or in part for any purpose without written permission from the CloudFlow Consortium. In addition to such written permission to copy, reproduce, or modify this document in whole or part, an acknowledgement of the authors of the document and all applicable portions of the copyright notice must be clearly referenced.

All rights reserved.

This document may change without notice.

2

DOCUMENT HISTORY

Version1 Issue Date Stage Content and Changes 1.0 05/04/2016 Final Final version to be submitted to the PO

1 Integers correspond to submitted versions

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Integrated circuits are designed in several iterative steps which include specification, architectural, schematic and physical design. When an IC design evolves from a schematic diagram to a physical layout, a model of the layout is generated (or “extracted”) in order to be used in simulations of the chip behaviour. It is important that the model of the chip layout is realistic and accurate, and that it takes into full account the electromagnetic behaviour of the actual materials in their given geometries. Only then it is possible for the simulation to predict any performance shortcomings which are due to unintended, so called “parasitic”, electrical and electromagnetic behaviour (e.g. capacitive & inductive coupling, high frequency effects and resistive losses) of the chip components.

Our EDA Cloudflow Application Experiment aimed to derive such realistic electrical and electromagnetic models of certain parts of a MEMS sensor, so as to be able to add to the sensor chip extra components and functionality without increasing the overall chip area. The particular sensors are designed and manufactured by the experiment partner EUROPEAN SENSOR SYSTEMS (ESS).

The goals of the experiment are:

x product innovation: o use cloud version of HELIC’s modelling software to derive realistic chip models and

free-up space on the chip by component placement optimisation o use the freed space to add new on-chip components and thus broaden the market

opportunities for the chip x enable the particular innovation by using an on-cloud version of HELIC’s software x reduce chip de-risking time by 1.5 weeks for the particular 12 week exercise (10% time

saving)

1.1 Technical impact

In this particular experiment HELIC’s cloudified RaptorX electromagnetic modelling software, helped ESS modify its MEMS chip design and add interfaces for a broader range of devices, while maintaining the same chip dimensions and cost. In particular ESS:

x freed 5% of the chip area, by placing closer together certain on-chip transmission lines, whilst maintaining achieved levels of performance

x utilized the freed area to add components and extend the ASIC’s ability to interface with all combinations of capacitive sensor structures

x ensured that there is no crosstalk on the chip, without having to manually implement pre-modelled generic foundry components

Further than the particular experiment and for more complex designs, IC designers have the following key benefits by using Helic’s software:

x capture hard-to-discover crosstalk between blocks of different chip hierarchies x include all Electromagnetic and Substrate effects in the derived models x account for High-frequency resistance, self-inductance, mutual inductance, capacitance and

substrate models in a single extracted file x quantify crosstalk between nets across multiple blocks x work on large circuits within realistic time scales!

4

1.2 Economic impact

1.2.1 End-User: Savings aspect

From the IC designer perspective, access to HELIC’s software over and HPC/cloud – enabled platform, provides a unique pay-per-user flexibility. HELIC’s software accepts generic format input (GDSII file of the physical design) and does not constrain the end user to the use of a specific hardware platform/OS or specific Electrical Design software suite.

The time-saving benefit from using Cloud Extraction services depends mainly on the complexity of the circuit that needs to be extracted and the capabilities of the cloud hardware. In the case of large designs, and considering that cloud hardware and optimized computing algorithms result in half the extraction time (conservative assumption) this could yield an overall project duration improvement of around 10%. In the present demonstration, since only a small, but crucial, part of the chip was extracted, the improvement due to the small extraction time is negligible. However, if one takes into account the time saved compared to the time needed to utilize alternative strategies to extraction (substitution of metal lines with pre-modelled METAL RESISTOR CELLS and utilization of conservative rules on physical design), then the overall project’s duration benefit is around 10%.

In terms of production costs reduction, were ESS to directly reduce chip area by 5% without adding the extra components, they would have achieved a cost saving of approximately 5% on wafer costs. For an indicative production cost of $0.8/chip, savings would be in the order of $40,000 (36,700 EUR) for 1 million pieces. It must be stressed however, that in this particular instance ESS benefits are not due to dollar savings on Si area, but due to added functionality.

In terms of software licence fees savings, should ESS decide to introduce the SaaS version of RaptorX in its design flow and employ it on crucial chip’s blocks, the cost reduction for ESS’s use of the cloud’s extraction scheme vs the standard extraction scheme is in the order of a whopping 80-90%. This would result in savings compared to the overall EDA tools licensing cost that ESS utilizes, of 25-30%, which may be up to 40,000 EUR per year.

Additional financial benefits for designers include (a) savings on expensive tape-outs (chip prototypes) and subsequent measurements which show chip misbehaviour due to unaccounted parasitics in the model (b) avoiding losses incurred by getting into the market with underperforming and thus under-priced chips, in order to meet customer timescales. Such savings vary widely, depending on chip technology, volume and application area.

1.2.2 End-User: Market prospects

ESS products address a large market of micro-component solutions providers (for smart phones, tablets, ultrabooks, and wearable devices). Currently estimated market size is at $3.7bn and with current growth rates this market will have grown to $4.50bn by 2020, with ESS’s potential share being at 0.2%, generating revenues of a ballpark $10m.

The Humidity sensors market alone, which is addressed by the improvements achieved in this experiment, is a fast growing segment, and was estimated at approximately $300m for 20173, while a single customer alone can bring in a $2.5m – $3m deal if their specification and quality standards are met.

3 IBS, 2013, “Consumer & Mobile MEMS market tracker”

5

1.2.3 ISV: New market prospects

HELIC, has developed from scratch and has successfully demonstrated a platform-agnostic web version of its RaptorX software, suitable for IP and Design Services SMEs as well as for the Academia. Security concerns over valuable IP leaking to the outside world, are not founded in the case of only partial chip processing, as long as any disclosing elements of the chip design, functionality, end application or customer do not leave the designer premises. Further security enhancements will depend upon the Cloud service provider and any additional security platform employed. Successful market take-up of the SaaS offering, could see HELIC gaining revenues from the SME market segment, where Helic’s standard products are outside most SMEs’ budget limits.

The global SME IC designers’ market targeted by Helic is estimated at $20-28m and Helic could be looking at a 2% penetration within 3 years from launch. With Helic’s currently envisaged pricing model this sort of penetration could bring another $0.5m.

In terms of new jobs, we estimate that two (2) new job posts will be created for the launch of the SaaS product and until a 150k EUR mark of additional revenue is achieved. Following that, it is estimated that another 1 job post will be created per 100k EUR of revenue. More job posts may be created due to promotion effects (e.g. via academic usage).

1.2.4 Environmental Impact

Amongst other things, Helic’s software can be used to reduce chip dimensions, by allowing chip designers to bring closer together various on-chip components. The two main drivers behind reducing chip size are (a) smaller chips for smaller devices and (b) cost. The former has been an ongoing trend and market requirement from the very beginnings of the electronics sector.

Cost savings due to chip area reduction is a major driver, since (a) the cost of a printed Si wafer is the same regardless of how many chips have been printed on it and (b) yield improves a lot as chip area is reduced, because the same number of on-wafer defects produce less defective chips.

Raw material savings (Silicon) are minuscule whilst also Si is abundant on the planet.

However, there is a lot to be saved in terms of energy and water by reducing chip size.

Although it is extremely difficult and complex to accurately estimate such savings, we indicatively base our calculations on a 2002 estimation6 which stipulated that a 2g (memory) chip requires:

x 1.6kg of fossil fuel x 72g of chemicals x 32kg of water

Adapting this gross approximation to our experiment and ESS's chips (which, however are not memory chips), we have:

5% savings on a relatively small quantity of 1 million of ESS chips originally sized at 1640x1600 um each give approximately 235gr7 of savings in Si chips. Very roughly and not accounting for shrinkage

6 Williams, E., Ayres, R. & Heller, M. The 1.7 kg microchip: energy and chemical use in the production of semiconductors. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36, 5504–5510 (2002).

6

effects in chip packaging, processes, yield and a large number of other parameters, we could obtain savings of:

x 188kg of fossil fuel x 8.46 kg of chemicals x 3.76 tonnes of water

If the above calculation gets even the order of magnitude approximately right, and given that we live in a world with dozens of billions of microchips being produced every year, there is certainly potential for massive savings on natural resources by reducing the size of those chips!

7 300mm wafer weight = 127grams, (Handbook of Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology, edited by Yoshio Nishi, Robert Doering). From there we calculate chip weight at 4.7mg and our 5% saving at 0.235mg. Hence savings on 1,000,000 chips is 235gr.

7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Technical impact ..................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Economic impact ..................................................................................................................... 4

1.2.1 End-User: Savings aspect ................................................................................................ 4

1.2.2 End-User: Market prospects ........................................................................................... 4

1.2.3 ISV: New market prospects ............................................................................................. 5

1.2.4 Environmental Impact ..................................................................................................... 5

1 Description of the current (engineering and manufacturing) process (PU) .................................. 9

2 Description of the (engineering and manufacturing) process based on Cloud services (PU) ...... 10

3 Lessons learned (PU) ..................................................................................................................... 16

4 Impact (PU) ................................................................................................................................... 17

4.1 ESS (END USER) ..................................................................................................................... 17

4.2 HELIC (ISV) ............................................................................................................................. 17

5 Business Model (CO) ..................................................................................................................... 19

5.1 Business Model exploration concept .................................................................................... 19

5.2 Customer Development ........................................................................................................ 19

5.3 Market prospection and exploitation expectative ............................................................... 19

5.4 User benefits ......................................................................................................................... 21

6 Execution of the Experiment (CO) ................................................................................................ 23

6.1 List of Experiment Activities .................................................................................................. 23

6.1.1 Significant Activities and Results ................................................................................... 23

6.1.2 D2: ALGORITHMIC SOLUTIONS (CLOUDIFICATION) (Activities 2.x) .............................. 24

6.1.3 D3: CHIP simulation and optimisation (Activities 3.x) .................................................. 24

6.1.4 D4: Business model (activities 4.x) ................................................................................ 26

7 Recommendation to the CloudFlow infrastructure (CO) .............................................................. 27

8 Confidential information (CO) ....................................................................................................... 28

9 Involved Organisations ................................................................................................................. 29

Appendix 1: User requirements and how they are met (CO) ............................................................... 30

Appendix 2: Usability Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 33

Evaluation Details ............................................................................................................................. 33

Process overview .............................................................................................................................. 33

Issue 121.1: User guidance is missing ........................................................................................... 34

Issue 121.2: Concealed options in Advanced setup ...................................................................... 34

8

Issue 121.3: Nested tabs in Advanced setup ................................................................................ 36

Issue 121. 4: Progress bar is inaccurate and misleading ............................................................... 38

Appendix 3: Business Model exploration concept EDA Experiment .................................................... 40

1 Objective ....................................................................................................................................... 41

2 Value proposition .......................................................................................................................... 41

3 Distribution ................................................................................................................................... 41

4 Customer relationship................................................................................................................... 42

5 Customers ..................................................................................................................................... 42

6 Key resources ................................................................................................................................ 42

7 Key activities ................................................................................................................................. 43

8 Key alliances .................................................................................................................................. 43

9 Cost structure ................................................................................................................................ 43

10 Revenue streams ....................................................................................................................... 43

11 Cloud-based business model exploration concept ................................................................... 44

APPENDIX 4: CUSTOMER DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................. 45

10 EUROPEAN SENSOR SYSTEMS ................................................................................................... 45

10.1 SEGMENT ............................................................................................................................. 45

10.2 PROBLEMS ........................................................................................................................... 45

10.3 CURRENT PRODUCT (N/A) ................................................................................................ 46

10.4 CLOUD-COMPUTING ........................................................................................................... 47

10.5 CLOUD PRODUCT ................................................................................................................ 47

10.6 PRICES AND PAYMENT MODEL ......................................................................................... 49

10.7 SOFTWARE SERVICES WORKFLOWS OFFERED BY THE “CLOUDFLOW” PLATFORM . 50

11 ARISTOTLE UNIVERITY OF THESSALONIKI (EX-INTEL) ............................................................... 51

11.1 SEGMENT ............................................................................................................................. 51

11.2 PROBLEMS ........................................................................................................................... 51

11.3 CURRENT PRODUCT ........................................................................................................... 52

11.4 CLOUD-COMPUTING ........................................................................................................... 53

11.5 CLOUD PRODUCT ................................................................................................................ 54

11.6 PRICES AND PAYMENT MODEL ......................................................................................... 55

11.7 SOFTWARE SERVICES WORKFLOWS OFFERED BY THE “CLOUDFLOW” PLATFORM . 56

9

1 DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT (ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING) PROCESS (PU)

With its existing design process ESS does not perform parasitics model extraction. Inductance effects in MEMS circuitries have, theoretically, only second-order performance implications due to, so far, relatively low-frequency operation. Furthermore, the cost and computational demands placed by parasitics extraction, more often than not, lead manufacturers to accept their risks and omit parasitics modelling from their design process.

Regarding parasitic resistors and capacitors and due to cost limitations, the approach used by ESS was dual:

a) Regarding parasitic resistors, the most crucial parts of the chip were identified and the metal lines that were considered crucial were substituted by METAL RESISTOR CELLS, which are parametrized metal line cells provided by the fabrication partner in its Process Design Kit, that correctly model the ohmic resistor of the metal line. Although these models are provided at zero cost by the fabrication partner, their incorporation to the physical design is time-consuming, therefore limiting their use only to some very crucial areas.

b) Regarding parasitic capacitance, the most crucial parts of the chip were identified and the metal lines that were considered crucial were placed far apart so as to minimize the possibility of metal-to-metal capacitance and cross-talk. This approach leads to non-optimum chip area use.

The incorporation of the above mentioned strategies into the schematic and physical design (layout) extends the initial design time by 10%. For a relatively small, 12-week design and layout phase, this 10% translates to almost 1.5 weeks, with significant impact in labour costs, and although performance risks are mitigated, the overall chip area remains non-optimized.

10

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE (ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING) PROCESS BASED ON CLOUD SERVICES (PU)

HELIC’s CloudFlow implementation of its parasitics extraction engine is fairly simple, requiring end users to upload their design files, request for a quotation, set up their required modelling parameters and run the job. Once the modelling job is completed, results (text files) become available for download. The quotation functionality is currently implemented in a proforma way.

The process is detailed below with annotated screenshots:

FIGURE 1: THE CLOUDFLOW PORTAL. HELIC’S WORKFLOW SHOWN WITH A RED ARROW.

11

FIGURE 2: HOME PAGE: UNLESS THE USER REQUIRES TO PARAMETRISE HELIC’S MODELING ENGINE, IT IS POSSIBLE TO COMPLETE THE JOB WITHOUT LEAVING THIS PAGE.

FIGURE 3: HOME PAGE: THE MODELING JOB HAS BEEN GIVEN A NAME AND THE DESIGN FILE HAS BEEN UPLOADED IN GDS FORMAT.

12

FIGURE 4: THE USER HAS REQUESTED TO “CALCULATE COST” AND IS PRESENTED WITH A POPUP PROMTING TO EITHER GET COST ESTIMATION OR CANCEL. EXECUTION CANNOT RUN IF NO COST ESTIMATION IS PRODUCED AND ACCEPTED.

FIGURE 5: COST ESTIMATE IS PRESENTED TO THE USER. JOB EXECUTION CAN ONLY PROCEED IF COST IS ACCEPTED.

13

FIGURE 6: THE USER HAS ACCEPTED COSTS AND IS PRESENTED WITH THE “START JOB” BUTTON, AS WELL AS AN IMAGE OF THE DESIGN, SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THIS IS THE CORRECT DESIGN TO BE PROCESSED.

FIGURE 7: THE USER HAS PRESSED “START JOB” AND IS DIRECTED TO CLOUDFLOW PORTAL PROGRESS BAR.

14

FIGURE 8: ONCE THE JOB HAS BEEN COMPLETED, THE USER IS BROUGHT BACK TO HELIC’S LOOK & FEEL AND PRESENTED WITH JOB LOGS, JOB DETAILS AND DOWNLOADABLE RESULTS.

FIGURE 9: USER HAS PRESSED THE “SHOW LOGS” BUTTON. LOGS (SAMPLE SHOWN IN THIS FIGURE) ARE DISPLAYED ON THE BROWSER PAGE.

15

FIGURE 10: USER IS ABLE TO DOWNLOAD THE RESULTS, WHICH ARE TWO TEXT FILES NAMELY A NETLIST AND AN S-PARAMETERS FILE.

16

3 LESSONS LEARNED (PU)

The ability to access on-demand a parasitics extraction tool allowed ESS to optimize the ESS112B read-out chip area by an approximate 5% while maintaining already achieved levels of performance. Another area where a cloud-enabled environment is useful is the fact that the extraction procedure is done on cloud hardware, leaving the user’s hardware available for working on other aspects of the design phase concurrently with the extraction. The combined effect of using the extraction tool instead of incorporating Process Design Kit’s dedicated parametrized cells, and freeing local hardware from extraction duties, could potentially reduce ESS’s time-to-market (depending on the type of chip) by an approximate 5%. Although, in the present demonstration, only a small portion of the chip was extracted, (to produce clear benefits for ESS’s chip next version, fast enough to be available for next programmed tapeout, end of Q2 of 2016), therefore leading to negligible extraction times, also given the use of HPC. Extraction time can vastly increase in the case of full-chip extraction (a 3-hour extraction could be expected for a full chip of the particular technology). In that case, sourcing the computation to cloud hardware can be advantageous.

HELIC has had the chance to test its hypothesis that end users like ESS will actually be interested in using the Web application. Concerns regarding security still remain to be investigated by probing more and diverse users.

17

4 IMPACT (PU)

4.1 ESS (END USER)

The use of a cloud-enabled environment, as far as ESS is concerned, gives designers the flexibility to pay only for the actual time that the extraction software is used. The input for using the software is generic (GDSII file of the physical design) and therefore does not constrain the end user to the use of a specific hardware platform/OS or specific Electrical Design software suite. Therefore flexibility for the end user is given.

The benefit from using Cloud Extraction services in terms of time depends mainly on the complexity of the circuit that needs to be extracted, in combination with the capabilities of the cloud hardware. In the case of large designs and considering that cloud hardware and computing algorithms result in half the extraction time (conservative assumption) this could yield an overall project’s duration improvement by around 10%. In the present demonstration, since only a small, but crucial, part of the chip was extracted, the improvement due to the small extraction time is negligible. However, if one takes into account the time saved compared to the time needed to utilize alternative strategies to extraction (substitution of metal lines with METAL RESISTOR CELLS and utilization of conservative rules on physical design), then the overall project’s duration benefit is around 10%.

In particular, the benefit from using cloud extraction services in terms of hardware resources can offer a considerable advantage in the case of extracting complicated designs or full-chip, since the extraction procedure is carried on the cloud hardware, leaving the user’s hardware available for working other aspects of the design phase in parallel to the extraction (several iterations of full-chip, 3-hour extraction of a typical 12-week tapeout duration).

With regards to cost, the use of a cloud SaaS for extraction along with its pay-per-use licensing scheme allows to test several physical placements and their parasitic side-effects at a very reasonable cost. For such a use on crucial chip’s blocks, the cost reduction for ESS’s use of the cloud’s extraction scheme vs the standard extraction scheme is in the order of 80-90%, which is impressive. This would result in savings compared to the overall EDA tools licensing cost that ESS utilizes, of 25-30%, which may be up to 40,000 EUR per year.

The present demonstration gave ESS the opportunity to access more aggressive usage of the present chip’s area, while keeping any effect of the parasitics to negligible levels, not affecting the present performance metrics. Therefore, the area reduction of 5% led to exploiting the chip’s “real-estate” to incorporate an extra interoperability functionality inside the chip, which, in turn, is expected to significantly expand the market for the chip, since it will be possible to interface to a wide range of capacitive humidity sensors.

The use of Cloud-based extraction can extend the reliability of ESS interfacing ASICs and sensors, in general. Minimizing all factors that can lead to sensors failure, and have high yield and high Mean-Time-Between-Failures (MTBF) can, in the prospect of production and support phase, prove very important factors for reducing customer support costs and build reputation among customers.

4.2 HELIC (ISV)

There are multiple benefits for Helic from the Experiment:

x Product Innovation and Improvement.

18

HELIC and ATHENA have collaborated to improve HELICs netlist reduction in the time and space complexity of matrix operations, by means of exploiting structure as well as distributed computing. A prototype implementation based on ScaLAPACK was developed in order to experiment with different distribution schemes. Preliminary results with medium-size matrices were encouraging.

x Target market extension: Current HELIC’s B2B distribution practices serve the company’s large customers, and involve a complex-to-manage, specialised, high-commission global sales reps network as well as permanent staff in the US and Japan. A SaaS version of HELIC’s software addresses an untapped market segment of freelance designers and SMEs (small design houses). This global market segment to be addressed by HELIC with its envisaged SaaS business model is estimated at around $20,000,000 with a potential for $500k-$750k in annual revenue once a 2.5% penetration has been achieved. It must be mentioned however, that take-up of the particular SaaS is anticipated to be rather slow. This is due to confidentiality and security concerns of the Semiconductor Sector, given the speed at which it is possible to copy electronic devices once their IC designs have been made available e.g. via a possible server-side security breach.

• Increased Customer Acquisition Rate and Reduced Account Management Costs: Currently customer deals go through lengthy trials and negotiations, both incurring significant costs in expensive man-hours and travel. Such practices and costs cannot scale to the SMEs’ and contractors’ segment. HELIC’s SaaS will involve a fair, flexible billing system that will remove negotiation costs. Product evaluations will also be made much easier, online, while also offering usage monitoring capability.

• Reduced Customer Support Costs: Currently, Raptor/X requires significant parametrisation in order to perform on specific customer production lines. Although it is possible that end-users handle this parametrisation, so far HELIC has been the owner of this responsibility in order to ensure traceable and error-free software installations. Especially in the case of large clients, who use fabrication nodes smaller than 40nm, lithographic effects are accentuated and HELIC’s SW requires a rather complex configuration setup. However, SMEs and contractors who will be targeted by HELIC’s SaaS offering, work with nodes larger than 40nm and can potentially handle software parametrisation by themselves. This will allow the SaaS business to run with minimal support costs per customer.

• Job creation: We estimate that two (2) new job posts will be created to launch the SaaS product and until a 150k EUR mark of additional revenue is achieved. Following that, it is estimated that another 1 job post will be created per 100k EUR of revenue. Job posts will relate to platform maintenance (e.g. GUI adaptations and Users Management), Customer Support, usage pattern data analysis and feedback to development team. Management, marketing and accounting resources will be shared with HELIC’s core business.

• Exposure: The SaaS model will enable HELIC to approach the academics’ non-paying “market” aiming to generate brand recognition and future clients as research partnerships

19

5 BUSINESS MODEL (CO)

5.1 Business Model exploration concept

The next figure summarizes the results of the working process employed with the software provider (Helic) involved in the EDA Experiment in order to identify the cloud-based specific business concepts. For that, the different blocks of the Osterwalder methodology for business models generation were reviewed step by step, obtaining the following main concepts latter on tested during the Customer Development stage.

The full Business Model report generated can be found in Appendix 3.

5.2 Customer Development

Following the Customer Development methodology and with the purpose of assessing the previous cloud-based business exploration concepts, the software provider identified two testing clients that provided real feedback about such proposed business concepts through the answer to a specifically designed questionnaire. The clients selected were European Sensor Systems and Thessaloniki University and the results obtained can be found in Appendix 4.

5.3 Market prospection and exploitation expectative

The next tables show market prospection data concerning aspects such as customer segments, market size or clients, sales and incomes expectations for the cloud-based exploitation intentions of Helic.

20

INDICATOR 1 year perspective 3 years perspect.

Number of proprietary applications/workflows in the cloud

Quantify the number of applications orworflows with other solutions to be exploitedin a cloud based manner

1 1

Customer segment/niche Define the type of customers to beaddressed in terms of sector,/industry,customer profile, customer size (SME, etc.)

Researchinstitutes (non-paying), Micro-Nanoeletronics

IC designhouses (SMEs & freelancers), Micro-Nanoelectronics

Market size Quantify approximately the global marketsize for that segment in terms of number of buyers potentially demanding the product/ service

0 $20-28m

Number of clients Quantify approximately the number of final users that will pay for the product/service

N/A 80

Market share Quantify approximately the percentage (in terms of units or revenue) of the marketsegment addresed that will buy the product/service

N/A 2%

Number of new jobs created Quantify approximately the number of jobscreated as a consequence of the cloud-based model

1 3


Number of sales to existing clients Quantify approximately the number of unitarysales of the cloud-based product /service toalready existing clients

0 2

Number of sales to new clients Quantify approximately the number of unitarysales of the cloud-based product /service tonew clients

N/A 78

Average price Define approximately the average price or prices of the cloud-services to the previous clients

0 200 EUR/CPUhr

Total income Quantify the income derived from total sales 0 ~500,000

Production and commercial relatedcosts

Quantify approximately the total costs raisedfrom any type of activity associated to thecloud-based business model

$30,000 p.a $90,000 p.a.

Payback Estimate the period of time (normally expressed in years) required to recoup the funds expended in the investment* or to reach the break-even point

N/A 2 years

Current Status Comments

Average hrs spent on our sw 528 est. 1 month, running 24 hrs, to make worthwhile buying

Avg. cost/hour, 1 CPU $102.27

Cloud CPU/hr cost $204.55 at least twice the cost otherwise annual fee payers will protest

Cloud Status

No. of exising customers to use cloud 2 No large corporations will use cloud due to confidentiality

2% market penetration 80 SMEs

Average no. of sw uses /year 10

Average no. of hrs (1 CPU)/use 3

Total revenue / year in Y3 $490,909

Payback: 2 years payback

Cloudflow cost: 25k, Y1: travel 10k,1 recruit 35k, 15k service improvements, moving out of Arctur, Y2: alike, Y3: alike + traction and 2

more recruits for support – 70k: total: Y1:60 + Y2: 60 + Y3:60+70 Roughly total 250k cumulative costs, 500k revenue Y3, payback Y2

21

In terms of the charging models, in the specific case of Helic for the EDA experiment the two-stage approach are the following:

x 1st stage: Helic has simplified the full approach and has basically followed the "on-demand" model. The cost of the application for the customer is 200 Euro core/hour.

x 2nd stage: Helic is interested in implementing also an “on-demand” model with a price variable depending on the complexity of the customer project.

As end user of the EDA Experiment, ESS- presents the following exploitation figures.

5.4 User benefits

From an average end user perspective, the following use case has been created in order to reflect the benefits obtained by such end user based on the new cloud software utilization.

Calculation and comparison of costs

Assumption: we are comparing against the cloud model a scenario based on a local resources case when the customer installs the software tool and runs it in their own premises. We are going to compare one project where the IC modelling task takes 3 CPU hours, assuming that the software runs in multi-threading mode.

In the local resources scenario, the price of the software license is 40.000€ per year (including maintenance).

In the cloud scenario, the IC modeling service is priced 600€ in software and 0,3€ in hardware (insignificant).

Concerning the benefits for the customer we can detail them in the next table:


Customer segment/niche Define the type of customers to be addressed in terms of sector/industry, customer profile, customer size (SME, etc.)

Comprehensive micro-component solutions provider (for smart phones, tablets, ultrabooks, and wearable devices)

Comprehensive micro-component solutions provider (for smart phones, tablets, ultrabooks, and wearable devices)

Market size Quantify approximately the global marketsize for that segment in terms of numberof buyers potentially demanding theproduct

$ 3.70 billions $ 4.50 billions

Number of clients Quantify approximately the number of final users that will pay for the product

1 3

Market share Quantify approximately the percentage (in terms of units or revenue) of the marketsegment addresed that will buy theproduct

0,08% 0,2%

Company growth Quantify approximately the number of new jobs created

2 5

Total income Quantify the income derived from total sales

$ 3.000.000 $ 10.000.000

22

Before CF Local Resources

CF Experiment Cloud model

Software costs 40.000 € 600 € 200 € per hour-CPU

Hardware costs Desktop PC 0,3 € 0,10 € per hour-CPU

Total 40.000 € 600,03 € Economic value Difference 39.400 €

1.5%

Time to complete task 1 day No parallel CPU running

1 day Parallel CPU running

Although there is no difference regarding the time to complete the task because one project execution demands only 3 CPU hours, the potential economic benefits are very large when targeting the cloud model.

In order to make a fair comparison we will compare an average company facing 50 IC modelling projects a year, taking each project 3 hours of CPU, and we will do a 3-year comparison. In this average case the costs would be:

Local resources scenario:

Software costs: 40.000€ * 3 years = 120.000€

Total costs: = 120.000€

Scenario cloud:

Software costs: 3 hours * 200 €/hour * 50 projects * 3 years = 90.000€

Hardware costs: 3 hours * 0,10 €/hour * 50 projects * 3 years = 45€

Total costs: = 90.045€

In this exercise the cloud model is still cheaper than the local resources models.

Break-even point: If we work with a 3 year period the break-even point is with 68 IC modelling projects a year (3 hours-CPU per project). In this scenario if the customer is running more than 68 projects then the traditional model is cheaper, if the customer is running less than 68 projects then the cloud model is cheaper.

We can demonstrate that the use of the workflow results in less costs without any impact on the quality of the work. The benefits for the end user are lower total costs of the cloud model compared to the other option.

23

6 EXECUTION OF THE EXPERIMENT (CO)

6.1 List of Experiment Activities

Activity name Lead

1.0 Collaboration with CloudFlow Competence Centre HELIC

1.1 User requirements Analysis and System specification HELIC

1.2 GUI development and Backend system porting to Cloud HELIC

1.3 Testing and bug fixing HELIC

2.1 Critical software components identification HELIC

2.2 Algorithm development and validation ATHENA 2.3 Integration to Cloud Platform HELIC

3.1 Chip Parasitics extraction for inductance effects ESS

3.2 Chip simulation and resutls analysis ESS

4.1 Evaluation of Experiment and Business Models CCC

4.2 Intermediate reporting of results HELIC 4.3 Experiment assessment and validation HELIC 4.4 Final reporting of results HELIC

6.1.1 Significant Activities and Results

6.1.1.1 D1: Web Application: full development and integration to CloudFlow Portal (Activities 1.x)

HELIC has developed a fully-functional front-end and back-end system that allow end users to specify the parameters of their extraction job, to receive a cost estimation and then choose to start the actual processing. The result of the activities is described in sufficient detail in section 2 (Description of the (Engineering and Manufacturing) Process based on Cloud Services).

Besides the actual application development, significant efforts were expended to integrate HELIC’s application to the CloudFlow Portal. The GUI had to be redesigned in order to be adapted to the Cloud Platform workflow. The integration also required careful planning and coordination with people from the CF CC, in order to maintain a seamless experience for the end-users.

Furthermore, HELIC, with excellent support by EAS, integrated GridWorker to HELIC’s software and enabled such functionality within the SaaS GUI.

24

6.1.2 D2: ALGORITHMIC SOLUTIONS (CLOUDIFICATION) (Activities 2.x)

ATHENA and HELIC focused on two major tasks in HELIC's pipeline, in order to identify critical issues and complexity bottlenecks:

x Model extraction of the passive components of various RF circuits, as well as of power grid networks. We considered polygon manipulation, efficient and scalable representation of polygonal shapes, and fast approximation of capacitance by exploring the free space among polygonal obstacles. A software prototype was developed. By targeted experiments, it let us reach the conclusion that this is not the main complexity bottleneck of the process.

x Netlist simulations are crucial since they determine the sensor front-end electronics design layout and the way it may be optimised. The goal is to improve the time and space complexity, while keeping the same accuracy with the original netlist. The main methodology is numerical linear algebra with two approaches: First, matrix operations were efficiently parallelized with a significant speedup obtained; second, matrix structure was exploited, but led to significant loss of accuracy. The conclusion was that netlist simulation is the major bottleneck and we focused on parallel and distributed algorithms for linear algebra.

In particular, we developed Cholesky factorization (and the ensuing inversion) for symmetric positive- definite matrices with dimension of more than 12,000. Our software is based on MPI (for parallel message passing), and uses Intel’s MKLibrary, BLAS (Basic Linear Algebra Software) and ScaLAPACK (scalable LAPACK). Both accuracy (of up to 14 significant digits), and acceleration (of 10% or 30% using 2 or 4 nodes with 2 or 4 threads each) are quite satisfactory for HELIC's applications. Acceleration increases as the size of the matrix increases.

6.1.3 D3: CHIP simulation and optimisation (Activities 3.x)

ESS identified the area of its ASIC chip (ESS112B) which is available for optimisation and realistic goals were set with regards to its usage (circled in red in adjacent figure).

More particularly, some area-consuming blocks such as the digital part of the chip that cannot be easily altered, led to the decision to exploit - by inserting an on-chip reference capacitor - any area freed by close placement of the metal lines connecting the analogue front-end circuitry of the chip with the pads of the chip. This will extend the ASIC’s ability to interface with all combinations of capacitive sensor structures.

The area to be optimised, after evaluation of the parasitic inductance/capacitance/resistance effects was chosen to be the metal lines connecting the input circuitry with the sensor pads (see previous figure)

25

Metal lines were separated from the rest of the ASIC’s layout and were turned into an autonomous, initial layout. Extraction was initiated and successfully finished producing a spectre/spice type of netlist. These steps were implemented several times in order to shrink the space between metal lines and reach a much tighter layout, which in turns will free-up area to be used for inserting an internal reference capacitor.

After having the models that corresponded to different placement of the metal lines, a generic simulation test-bench was created. This involved 3 main steps:

1. Correct isolation of the crucial input sub-circuits from the rest of the chip: this involves the a) Sensor pads along with the metal lines up to the b) Capacitance-to-voltage converter (CVC) with all the circuitry producing the necessary clock-phases, bias currents and the loading of the CVC’s output which is the c) input switches of a Sigma-Delta Analogue-to-Digital converter.

2. Incorporation of the metal lines extraction netlist into the overall netlist 3. Deciding the simulation outputs’ metrics and therefore setting up the corresponding

simulations and the metrics.

In our case, CVC’s output noise was considered as the key metric for resolution. Regarding reliability, the voltage waveforms on the input (pads) and on the output (internal circuitry) of the modelled metal lines were chosen to be checked for any spikes that exceeded 3.6V (which is the upper limit stated by the foundry of XFAB for reliable operation of the ASIC’s transistors).

So, by using the above described test bench, CVC’s output noise was extracted for several metal lines placements, while the voltage waveforms produced were checked for overvoltage. As seen on the table below, noise does not increase, in the final, tight placement, compared to the initial placement. Also, as seen in the transient simulation results, voltage levels do not exceed 3.6 V, in any case.

TABLE 1: SCHEMATIC TEST-BENCH METRICS RESULTS – OUTPUT RESOLUTION (NOISE)

FINAL FRONT-END INITIAL FRONT-END Device Param Noise Contribution % of Total Noise Contribution % of Total I10.I163.M21.m1 fn 1.36E-05 21.75 1.36E-05 21.75 I10.I163.M22.m1 fn 1.36E-05 21.75 1.36E-05 21.75 I10.I203.M0.m1 rs 7.69E-06 6.94 7.69E-06 6.93 I10.I203.M0.m1 rd 7.69E-06 6.94 7.69E-06 6.93 I10.I202.M0.m1 rs 7.69E-06 6.94 7.69E-06 6.93 I10.I202.M0.m1 rd 7.69E-06 6.94 7.69E-06 6.93 I10.I98.M1.m1 fn 6.38E-06 4.78 6.39E-06 4.78 I10.I163.M22.m1 id 5.92E-06 4.1 5.92E-06 4.1 I10.I163.M21.m1 id 5.92E-06 4.1 5.92E-06 4.1 I10.I163.M25.m1 id 5.56E-06 3.63 5.56E-06 3.63 Total Summarized 2.9199E-05 2.9204E-05

26

FIGURE 11: SCHEMATIC TEST-BENCH METRICS RESULTS – OVERVOLTAGE CHECK (FINAL=YELLOW, INITIAL=BLUE)

6.1.4 D4: Business model (activities 4.x)

HELIC and CARSA worked on the business model form the ISV perspective. Details are presented in section 5 of this document.

27

7 RECOMMENDATION TO THE CLOUDFLOW INFRASTRUCTURE (CO)

None

28

8 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION (CO)

Any information contained in paragraphs marked as (CO) – Confidential.

29

9 INVOLVED ORGANISATIONS

1. European Sensor Systems (ESS) is a global developer and manufacturer of high quality sensors based on micro-electronics technologies. ESS commenced operations in 2012 by a group of experienced executives and professionals, who accumulate decades of experience in the design, development, fabrication and integration of sensor based systems. ESS is based in Athens, Greece.

2. HELIC develops Electronic Design Automation (EDA) technology and Intellectual Property (IP) for high-speed/RF ICs, Systems-on-Chip (SoC) and Systems-in-Package (SiP). Founded in 2000, today HELIC is a global enterprise with offices in the USA and Japan, while its R&D and product support teams are located in Athens, Greece.

3. ATHENA is Greece-based Research Institute, founded in 2003 and operating under the auspices of the Ministry of Development (General Secretariat for Research & Technology). It is based in Athens, with institutes located also in Patras and Xanthi. It is the sole research center in Greece devoted to Computer Science and Informatics.

4. Arctur is the HPC provider, an SME from Slovenia which offers HPC resources plus support for parallelization and cloudification of software components.

5. The CloudFlow Competence Centre consists of several CloudFlow partners from different European countries who contribute their expertise in Cloud Computing, simulation and visualisation.

30

APPENDIX 1: USER REQUIREMENTS AND HOW THEY ARE MET (CO)

User Requirement Feasibility Success criteria Method of Measuring

success Success criteria achieved?

End User: European Sensor System

Optimisation of chip design is supported using cloud-based HELIC Software

Medium Identification of opportunities for reduction of chip size, or, maintain chip size but improve the capability (analyse or redesign options)

Comparison of chip design outcome from CF-based software to existing design outcomes (identifying opportunities for chip size reduction or improved chip capability)

Yes – cloud-based HELIC software allows wires to be placed more effectively, increasing usable space or reducing chip size – in this particular case area reduction was 5%. In the demonstrated case it allowed additional capacitor space, increasing the potential uses for the chip and therefore opening up new markets, based on a single capacitor sensing element, such as humidity sensors.

Quantify inductance-related signal integrity issues and redesign accordingly

Medium Signals remain unaffected comparing RC extracted simulations to RLC extracted simulations

Comparison of transient simulations using RC and RLC extracted net lists, after area optimization and extract noise/resolution

Tested by noise: show no difference in noise pre and post-design. In accordance with success criteria.

Overvoltage minimization and electro-migration rules fulfilment

Medium a) Overvoltage do not exceed maximum respective ratings, b) current densities fulfil electromigration limits

Transient simulation results using RLC extracted net list, after area optimization

Yes – results show that there are no voltages above 3.6V so it does not exceed maximum rating.

Software Vendor: HELIC S.A

HELIC parasitics extraction tool (Raptor/X) is available as a service

Medium Enable a user to experience the full cycle through CloudFlow (i.e. from accepting purchase to receiving results)

Successful demonstration during evaluation phase

Yes – successful demonstration during final evaluation.

31

Ease of Use Medium Representative users can achieve all tasks

Usability review Yes – see usability report (Appendix 2) for further details and recommendations. User guidance will be made available – will be ready by end of project.

Improvements in run time execution

Medium Timing improvements (over current performance) using CloudFlow

Comparison of CloudFlow processing time with existing performance on typical customer station

For the end user, parasitics extraction was not done before so there is not a direct comparison between CloudFlow processing time and existing time. Currently this is dependent on computing power provided by Arctur.

Research Institution: ATHENA Research & Innovation Center

To improve run time execution Medium Timing improvements (over single PC) using CloudFlow

Comparison of CloudFlow processing time to that on a single PC (without compromising quality)

Configurations of the ARCTUR cluster using 2 or 4 nodes with 2 or 4 threads each, gave speed-ups of 10% or 30%, respectively, over timing on a single PC

To increase the quality of the results

Medium Increase in accuracy of the quality of results, as determined by end-user

Quality comparison (as reported by end user) of existing and new (cloud) systems during evaluation phase

Numerical accuracy (10 to 14 correct decimal digits) is comparable, if not better, than the existing version, and is largely sufficient for this experiment

HPC Provider: Arctur d.o.o

Provide experiment with operational Cloud/HPC environment

High Operational Cloud/HPC environment with respect to experiment specification

Comparison between experiment specification and established environment

Yes – demonstrated in final evaluation.

Reduce time-to-solution for end user

High Reduced time to solution compared to base case

Comparison of simulation time of final solution compared to base case

The simulation itself is not run (and was not planned to be run) on the cloud. The parasitics extraction is not directly comparable as end user partner was not previously running these extractions. However the end

32

user estimates that use of the tool saves around 5-10% of the time spent on planning placement (which can take days).

Increase scalability of solution High Simulation runs scaled across multiple HPC nodes or Virtual Machines

Count of nodes or VMs used

Three separate options have been implemented in Helic’s GUI, relating to the number of nodes. In the Advanced Settings -> Grid Engine Selection: * Disabled: 1 node * Gridworker - Medium Static: 4 nodes * Gridworker – Large Dynamic: 5 nodes (dictated by the number of outputs of Helic’s software and constrained by infrastructure)

Reduced cost of simulation Medium Total cost of simulation is reduced

The CloudFlow tool is substantially more affordable for the end user: HELIC’s software may cost as little as €35,000 while in practice a user would be likely to spend €45,000-€50,000. The new cloud-based solution works out at €200 per hour, and a chip design can be completed for under €1,000 for the end user with lighter usage, making this a viable option.

Business Model exploration concept EDA Experiment -------------------

Designed by WP600 Team

HELIC COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

APPENDIX 2: USABILITY EVALUATION

The following methods were used for the usability evaluation: 1) heuristic evaluation in which two usability experts observed the end user while

performing a set of tasks on each application; 2) talk aloud in which the end user described their process as they were using the

application; 3) an interview of the end user following the software demonstration to explore the

issues.

In this report, severities of the usability issues are identified and recommendations to resolve them are proposed. It is recognised that it may not be possible to resolve each issue, and the suggestions are for guidance only. High severity items should be addressed as a priority. Summary of usability evaluation Pros: x End user was able to successfully perform parasitics extraction on a given test case x Commonly useful options are set by default x Form design is good with appropriate input options Cons: x User guidance is not yet available x Some options are hidden from the user when launching a job x The job progress bar does not provide useful information to the user

Evaluation Details

Process overview

The user logs in to the CloudFlow Portal and selects the experiment. The HELIC logo appears across the top of the page, clearly identifying the software. The user is presented with a “New Job” screen (Figure 1), where they can:

1. Edit the job settings, 2. Upload the file, 3. Calculate the cost, and 4. Start the job.

When the job runs, a progress bar is displayed. On completion, the user is returned to the Home tab. A new Results tab has been added, from which the user can download the extraction results. The results (in the format of a text file) are then opened in the environment

34

on the user’s local machine. No simulation is currently performed on the cloud. The user’s local software is outside the scope of this report.

Issue 121.1: User guidance is missing

Severity:

High

Description:

No guidance or support options are shown in case the user has issues with the application.

Recommendations:

Ideally, a user manual should be made available. If this is not possible, inline (e.g. tooltip) help may support the user, and contact details for further support could also be included on the page.

Response from experiment leader:

HELIC have indicated that a user manual will be made available later this year (in 2016).

Issue 121.2: Concealed options in Advanced setup

Severity:

Medium

Description:

It is unclear what configuration options would be available if the user selects the “Advanced setup” tab and an unfamiliar user may be unaware of what settings they can adjust before beginning the job. The term “advanced setup” can deter typical users. This is fine if the user is not expected to check or modify those options, and if the default settings are recommended in the majority of cases. However, if users are likely to need to check these options before starting a job, there should be a more prominent prompt for them to do so.




FIGURE 12: DEFAULT SCREEN WHEN LAUNCHING A JOB, SHOWING THE HOME AND ADVANCED SETUP TABS

It should be noted that pre-configuring options to a common default setup can be of great benefit to users and is commended, but it is nonetheless useful to indicate these options to the user.

Recommendations:

1. Rename the Advanced setup tab to “Job configuration”, or another term that does not imply that only advanced functionality can be adjusted there.

2. Identify (with support of end user) items which a user may commonly wish to check or modify and summarise these, along with the currently selected state, on the Home tab.

3. Alternatively, edit the tab setup such that the tabs from the Advanced setup are listed individually and combined into the top level of tabs (see Figure 2). This will give the user an immediate overview of the type of settings available to check. It also avoids having two levels of tabs (see issue 121.3).

36

FIGURE 13: SUGGESTED COMBINED TAB LEVELS


1. Recommendation will be implemented in due course 2. Recommendation will be implemented in due course (either 2 or 3)

Issue 121.3: Nested tabs in Advanced setup

Severity:

Low

Description:

When a user selects the advanced setup, a second set of “sub tabs” are presented for the user to move between the options. While a tab format is appropriate for this content type, there is no clear visual distinction between the two rows of tabs.

Recommendations:

Consider combining the tabs with the top level, as described previously. Alternatively, consider visually distinguishing the second set of tabs to make the hierarchical structure clear (see example in Figure 15).




FIGURE 14: EXISTING NESTED TAB NAVIGATION

FIGURE 15: TAB NAVIGATION MODIFIED TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE TWO LEVELS


Recommendation has been implemented (shown below)

38

Issue 121. 4: Progress bar is inaccurate and misleading

Severity:

Medium

Description:

When the job is started, the user is automatically redirected to an “in-progress” screen with a progress bar. Progress bars are important in managing user expectations. Particularly with cloud computing, the user may have little awareness of how long it will take for the job to run and for results to be available. The progress bar jumped quickly to about 20% full, but remained at that level until the job was complete. The user may interpret the progress bar as an indication of time remaining, and it could therefore be misleading. Users tend to perceive waiting times as longer when there are pauses in visual progress – even when actual waiting time is identical – and delays later in the process are typically less well tolerated than in cases where progress is seen to accelerate (see Harrison et al., 2007). Thus, a progress bar that appears to stall at around 20% is likely to cause user frustration and an increase in perceived waiting time.

FIGURE 16: THE PROGRESS BAR REMAINS STATIC AFTER INITIAL VISUAL FEEDBACK.

Recommendations:




If it is possible to improve the progress bar response, this is a preferred solution. However, if there is inadequate information available to provide accurate feedback to the user, the progress bar should be modified; an inaccurate progress bar may be a worse option than no progress bar at all. Instead of a visual display of progress, consider instead providing a text description of the current status (e.g. “Processing extraction, stage 2/5”).


The progress bar has been improved to show percentage completion as well as process stages, as shown below:

40

APPENDIX 3: BUSINESS MODEL EXPLORATION CONCEPT EDA EXPERIMENT

Business Model exploration concept

EDA Experiment

Project:

WP600 Coordinator:




1 OBJECTIVE

This Appendix reflects the results of the working process employed with the software provider (Helic) involved in the EDA Experiment in order to identify the cloud-based specific business concepts to be tested during the Customer Development stage. With the purpose of assessing the cloud-based business hypothesis presented in this document, the software provider will identify one or two testing clients which will provide real feedback about the proposed concepts.

NOTE: in the document Helic will be referred as “the software provider”.

2 VALUE PROPOSITION

Some main concepts are to be stressed with regard to the value proposition offered to the customers for ICs (integrated circuit) design with the software modelling service in a cloud-based manner:

x Higher flexibility x Lower cost and price to be paid for the service x HPC in terms of computing power accessible

Moreover, in the cloud the customers would have access to a new charging option attending to the difficulty/complexity of the project and not only to the time of software usage as it is like today, where increasing software processing speed reduces the number of time-based licenses required by the customer (“the faster it runs the less they pay”). This will also allow the software provider to reach more small customers as the service offered is more flexible.

3 DISTRIBUTION

For the cloud model it is foreseen to keep basically the same approach in terms of the main channels used to reach the customers and based on a permanent presence in the USA and Japan and a network of specialized sales representatives in Europe, Israel and Korea.

Besides, a special consideration will be given to aspects like the word of mouth (as today) as well as obtaining a good positioning for Google searches, allowing to reach customers with very specific problems that otherwise would be inaccessible.

42

4 CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP

In line with the intention of continuing to maintain a strong and long-term relationship approach with the customers, the cloud will give access to a higher number of customers that could raise difficulties in terms of the efforts dedicated by the company’s customer support department in the case such number exceeds certain limits. However, given the small size of the customers (SMEs), software parametrisation and customer support are much less demanding than for current clientele who work in cutting-edge technologies with many unknowns.

A cloud implementation will also allow the software provider to exchange instant feedback with more customers.

A value and co-creation strategy is also to be kept in order to strengthen such customer relationship.

5 CUSTOMERS

Due to the constraint that the microchip industry does not normally allow a cloud-based software service usage because of security concerns, the main target will be initially in the research and academy area. However, as long as the security issue is solved or relaxed the customer segments to be addressed will also include small SMEs willing to pay for a cloud service under small fees. Such SMEs are normally characterized by not being able to afford expensive annual fee for software licences. In summary, the kind of industries and areas will be the same but the customer type will change.

6 KEY RESOURCES

The main aspects to be stressed here are the ones related to the security issues by the fact of operating on the cloud, the access to platform/infrastructure resources and the company image itself considering a more customer oriented perspective.

Apart from that and due to the excellence demanded for this business activity, the software provider will need to count on its own and high-level technical capabilities.




7 KEY ACTIVITIES

One of the most important activities for the software provider, which continue to be key in a cloud-based environment is the close after-sales support to the customers.

In addition, aspects such as a marketing strategy with a big focus on the “word of mouth” and specific training actions for some other software services/products (not specially the one picked for the CloudFlow experiment) will also be considered as key activities.

8 KEY ALLIANCES Besides the current sales distributors and representatives and the research oriented partners, there is a strategic and potential alliance profile represented by the foundries (chip manufacturers), which are requested to offer a very high quality in their products. For that purpose, the software provider would first need to go through certain certification processes.

Other partnership deals are possible with small software provider companies that tackle different aspects of the microchip design, as a complementary alliance. Large EDA companies in the microchip industry do not represent such an opportunity because they actually cover all the steps of the process for making their own chips.

9 COST STRUCTURE The structure of costs will not suffer from relevant modifications when moving to the cloud since the core product sold will be the same regardless the change from large customers to smaller ones. In this sense and focusing on the technical side of the business, the infrastructure derived costs paid currently for very high computing processes and running of the tests will not vary.

The proportion of after-sales and administration associated costs will be increased by having a larger client base and therefore more contracts to be managed. To this effect, a different approach to customer support and contracts management will need to be implemented.

10 REVENUE STREAMS In principle, a dynamic pricing model is the one planned to be applied for a cloud service operation. The variations on the price will be decided based on the complexity of the customer project. In this way, the software provider will offer an alternative charging model to the classical pay-per-use one dependent on the “time of usage” factor.

The price to be charged would be proposed after an analysis of the complexity required for a circuit modelling previously uploaded into a cloud platform by the customer.

D121.1 CloudFlow (FP7-2013-NMP-ICT-FoF-609100)

44

11 CLOUD-BASED BUSINESS MODEL EXPLORATION CONCEPT We have reviewed step by step the main business blocks of the Osterwalder methodology for business models generation. As a summary these are the main concepts to be tested during the Customer Development stage.

Foundries

Small software providers for other

parts design

Specialized sales distributors

“Word of mouth”

Google positioning

Dynamic pricing based on complexity

Research and academy segment

Small SMEs

long-term relationship

More user feedback

Value and co-creation

After-sales support

Training actions

Marketing strategy (“word of mouth)

After-sales

Administration

Infrastructure/HPC

Higher flexibility

Lower price

HPC resources

Charge for project complexity

Security

Platform/infrastructure resources

Company image

D121.1 CloudFlow (FP7-2013-NMP-ICT-FoF- 609100)

45

APPENDIX 4: CUSTOMER DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

10 EUROPEAN SENSOR SYSTEMS

10.1 SEGMENT

1. Do you use software solutions to support your engineering processes?

1. Yes, definitely 2. Yes, in some specific aspects 3. Not at all Additional comments: ........................................................................................................................

2. What solutions do you use? 1. CAD, CAM, CAE 2. Simulation 3. PLM 4. Other Additional comments: Designing the sensors, electronics and mechanics and simulating the performance.

3. Do you use the software from Helic?

1. Yes, definitely 2. No, we use another similar software package 3. No, but we are interested in using it Additional comments: ........................................................................................................................

10.2 PROBLEMS

4. Which are the main problems you have on ICs design modelling that you try to solve with

the use of the software from Helic? Problems: Parasitic extraction and the high cost of other software solutions.

5. Which of your main problems are not being addressed or cannot be addressed by the software from Helic?

CloudFlow (FP7-2013-NMP-ICT-FoF- 609100) D121.1

46

Problems: We are not using it yet.

6. How would it be the best product to help you doing this job? Details: It is a matter of different factors: cost, complexity (number of nodes/nets that the software can solve), processing capability of the software and time spent, etc.

10.3 CURRENT PRODUCT (N/A)

7. In how many of your engineering processes do you use the software from Helic?

Details: ...............................................................................................................................................

8. How often do you use the software from Helic? Details: ...............................................................................................................................................

9. How many people in your organization use the software from Helic? Details: ...............................................................................................................................................

10. How many licenses of the software do you currently have/need? Details: ...............................................................................................................................................

11. Besides licensing, is there any other charging method offered to you by Helic? Details: ...............................................................................................................................................

12. How much do you approximately pay a year for the software from Helic? Details: ...............................................................................................................................................

13. Under the Helic’s software product/service that you currently pay for, with which of the following business aspects you are not sufficiently satisfied or you consider that might be improved, if any? 1. The distribution channels and means utilized to provide the service 2. The type of relationship you keep with the software provider 3. The price and/or way of charging applied to the software product/service 4. Technical aspects (accessibility, reliability, usability, flexibility, etc.) that other providers’

solutions improve Additional comments: ........................................................................................................................


47

14. Generally speaking, which are the strong points of the software from Helic? Points: ................................................................................................................................................

15. Generally speaking, which are the weak points of the software from Helic?

Points: ................................................................................................................................................

10.4 CLOUD-COMPUTING

16. Do you use the Cloud computing services from any provider?

1. Yes, we do 2. No, we are not interested in using Cloud services 3. No, but we are interested in using them Additional comments: ........................................................................................................................

17. What is your opinion about Cloud computing? 1. Positive 2. Negative Why positive/negative: Accessibility, speed, etc.

18. Do you consider Security to be a constraint for a software service in case of migration to a cloud based environment? 1. Not at all 2. We are not aware of potential problems concerning security when operating in the cloud 3. Yes, but not objection is to be put as long as security is somehow assured in the service 4. Yes, but only under some specific conditions 5. Yes, it is considered as a constraint hardly solved Additional comments: ........................................................................................................................

10.5 CLOUD PRODUCT

19. Do you consider Helic’s software service might raise advantages (price, reliability,

computing power, relationship with the provider, after-sales service, etc.) to your organization in case of being offered in a cloud-based manner? 1. Yes, definitely 2. Yes, in some specific aspects 3. Yes, but not relevant advantages are to be expected 4. We are not aware of potential advantages coming from cloud-based software services 5. Not at all


48

Additional comments: Price and reliable results in less time.

20. Which are the main technical/functional problems or weak points that might be solved in case of accessing to the Helic’s software solution in a cloud based manner? Please specify your answer: Cost (too expensive now) and the parasitic extraction in critical nodes (nets) of our integrated circuits.

21. With numerical marks, being 1 the highest and 8 the lowest, specify what you expect to be the (positive) impact in each of the following aspects when moving to a cloud based software service 1. Lower price 2. Service flexibility 3. Service customization 4. Service availability 5. Higher computing power 6. Service accessibility 7. Service usability 8. Service performance 9. Service reliability Add any other aspects if necessary: In a decreasing order of importance: 1, 9, 8, 3 and then the rest.

22. Are there aspects concerning the channels/means the Helic’s software solution is provided

that might be improved in a cloud based manner? Please specify your answer: Speed and communication with the provider.

23. Through which of the following channels would you prefer to be served and maintain post-sales communication and relations with Helic as software service provider in the cloud? 1. Physical sales force 2. Web/online sales force 3. Cloud infrastructure/platform provider 4. Third companies in the engineering/manufacturing value chain as intermediaries Add any other channels if necessary:.....................................................................................

24. Are there aspects adding value to the Helic’s software service received in case the relationship with the provider might be enhanced or modified according to the characteristics of a cloud based environment? Please specify your answer: ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................


49

25. Which types of relationship would you value most to establish and maintain with Helic as software service provider in the cloud? 1. Co-creation (R&D, etc.) 2. Particular needs solving 3. Short-term base 4. Long-term base 5. After-sales/maintenance/upgrade 6. Training/consultancy Add any other type of relationship if necessary:.................................................................................

26. Besides the Helic’s software functionalities themselves are there other service related activities or aspects that would need to be enhanced in a cloud based manner? Please specify your answer: ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

27. With numerical marks, being 1 the highest and 9 the lowest, specify how you value each of the following activities/aspects when moving to a cloud based software service 1. After-sales service and support 2. Software upgrade 3. Quality of service 4. Security assurance 5. Training support 6. Consultancy oriented service 7. Offering of new cloud computing services and possibilities 8. Provider proximity and knowledge of our needs and expectations 9. Joint R&D activity and collaboration Add any other activities/aspects if necessary: In a decreasing order of importance: 3, 1, 6, 4 and then the rest.

10.6 PRICES AND PAYMENT MODEL

28. What is your opinion about the unitary price that Helic is proposing to charge for the

software service offered from the cloud? 1. It is fair attending to the value provided 2. It is high according to what I had expected 3. It is low attending to the value provided Additional comments:.........................................................................................................................


50

29. What is your opinion about the charging method that Helic is proposing to implement for the software service offered from the cloud? 1. It is adequate and responds to the characteristics of a cloud based software service 2. It is worthy for a cloud model but other charging alternatives would also be desired 3. It does not raise any added-value and does not take advantage of a cloud based service

possibilities Additional comments:.........................................................................................................................

30. With numerical marks, being 1 the highest and 3 the lowest, specify how you value each of the following charging methods when moving to a cloud based software service 1. Pay-per-use - 1 2. Flat rate - 3 3. License subscription - 2 4. Other

Add any other charging method if necessary:....................................................................................

10.7 SOFTWARE SERVICES WORKFLOWS OFFERED BY THE “CLOUDFLOW” PLATFORM

31. In the context of the usage that your organization makes of engineering/manufacturing

oriented software, would you demand different software services/functionalities provided separately from different software products to be connected or integrated in a single software solution? 1. No, never 2. Yes, but punctually for some very specific applications 3. Yes, increasingly 4. Yes, definitely

Additional comments:.........................................................................................................................

32. Do you consider that having access to a platform offering such a type of integral solution and connected services and workflows your organization may incur in resources, efforts, time and money saving? 1. Not really 2. Yes, but only for some very specific applications 3. Yes, increasingly 4. Yes, definitely



51

33. Would you be willing to pay an increased and fair unitary price in order to make use of

such a type of integral software service in the cloud allowing workflows among different software solutions accessed through a single platform? 1. Not at all 2. We are not able to valorise such a type of service 3. Yes, but punctually for some very specific applications 4. Yes, but under certain conditions (please specify) 5. Yes, but firstly testing the solution 6. Yes, increasingly 7. Yes, definitely

Additional comments: As long as the final price is smaller than the sum of the different prices separately and we get more functionalities.

11 ARISTOTLE UNIVERITY OF THESSALONIKI (EX-INTEL)

11.1 SEGMENT

1. Do you use software solutions to support your engineering processes?

1. Yes, definitely 2. Yes, in some specific aspects 3. Not at all Additional comments: ........................................................................................................................

2. What solutions do you use? 1. CAD, CAM, CAE 2. Simulation 3. PLM 4. Other Additional comments: ........................................................................................................................

3. Do you use the software from Helic?

1. Yes, definitely 2. No, we use another similar software package 3. No, but we are interested in using it Additional comments: ........................................................................................................................

11.2 PROBLEMS


52

4. Which are the main problems you have on ICs design modelling that you try to solve with

the use of the software from Helic? Problems: Inductor modelling in ICs.

5. Which of your main problems are not being addressed or cannot be addressed by the software from Helic? Problems: Substrate extraction and full parasitic extraction.

6. How would it be the best product to help you doing this job? Details: Product including the abovementioned.

11.3 CURRENT PRODUCT

7. In how many of your engineering processes do you use the software from Helic?

Details: In 2 processes.

8. How often do you use the software from Helic? Details: Not very often. Around once per month.

9. How many people in your organization use the software from Helic? Details: Around 15 people because of the number of designs required.

10. How many licenses of the software do you currently have/need? Details: 2-3 licenses.

11. Besides licensing, is there any other charging method offered to you by Helic? Details: No

12. How much do you approximately pay a year for the software from Helic? Details: No idea on exact price but probably a quite cheap price.

13. Under the Helic’s software product/service that you currently pay for, with which of the following business aspects you are not sufficiently satisfied or you consider that might be improved, if any? 1. The distribution channels and means utilized to provide the service 2. The type of relationship you keep with the software provider


53

3. The price and/or way of charging applied to the software product/service 4. Technical aspects (accessibility, reliability, usability, flexibility, etc.) that other providers’

solutions improve Additional comments: ........................................................................................................................

14. Generally speaking, which are the strong points of the software from Helic? Points: Pcells generator and availability.

15. Generally speaking, which are the weak points of the software from Helic?

Points: Simulation time and accuracy.

11.4 CLOUD-COMPUTING

16. Do you use the Cloud computing services from any provider?

1. Yes, we do 2. No, we are not interested in using Cloud services 3. No, but we are interested in using them Additional comments: ........................................................................................................................

17. What is your opinion about Cloud computing? 1. Positive 2. Negative Why positive/negative: Positive – Flexibility Negative - Security

18. Do you consider Security to be a constraint for a software service in case of migration to a cloud based environment? 1. Not at all 2. We are not aware of potential problems concerning security when operating in the cloud 3. Yes, but not objection is to be put as long as security is somehow assured in the service 4. Yes, but only under some specific conditions 5. Yes, it is considered as a constraint hardly solved Additional comments: ........................................................................................................................


54

11.5 CLOUD PRODUCT

19. Do you consider Helic’s software service might raise advantages (price, reliability,

computing power, relationship with the provider, after-sales service, etc.) to your organization in case of being offered in a cloud-based manner? 1. Yes, definitely 2. Yes, in some specific aspects 3. Yes, but not relevant advantages are to be expected 4. We are not aware of potential advantages coming from cloud-based software services 5. Not at all Additional comments: ........................................................................................................................

20. Which are the main technical/functional problems or weak points that might be solved in case of accessing to the Helic’s software solution in a cloud based manner? Please specify your answer: Maintenance/update

21. With numerical marks, being 1 the highest and 8 the lowest, specify what you expect to be the (positive) impact in each of the following aspects when moving to a cloud based software service 1. Lower price - Important 2. Service flexibility - Important 3. Service customization – Less important 4. Service availability - Important 5. Higher computing power - Important 6. Service accessibility - Important 7. Service usability - Less important 8. Service performance - Less important 9. Service reliability - Less important Add any other aspects if necessary:...................................................................................................

22. Are there aspects concerning the channels/means the Helic’s software solution is provided

that might be improved in a cloud based manner? Please specify your answer: ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

23. Through which of the following channels would you prefer to be served and maintain post-sales communication and relations with Helic as software service provider in the cloud? 1. Physical sales force 2. Web/online sales force 3. Cloud infrastructure/platform provider 4. Third companies in the engineering/manufacturing value chain as intermediaries


55

Add any other channels if necessary:.....................................................................................

24. Are there aspects adding value to the Helic’s software service received in case the relationship with the provider might be enhanced or modified according to the characteristics of a cloud based environment? Please specify your answer: Accessibility and feedback from the customer to the provider about the tool.

25. Which types of relationship would you value most to establish and maintain with Helic as

software service provider in the cloud? 1. Co-creation (R&D, etc.) 2. Particular needs solving 3. Short-term base 4. Long-term base 5. After-sales/maintenance/upgrade 6. Training/consultancy Add any other type of relationship if necessary:.................................................................................

26. Besides the Helic’s software functionalities themselves are there other service related activities or aspects that would need to be enhanced in a cloud based manner? Please specify your answer: Security issue.

27. With numerical marks, being 1 the highest and 9 the lowest, specify how you value each of the following activities/aspects when moving to a cloud based software service 1. After-sales service and support - Important 2. Software upgrade - Important 3. Quality of service - Less important 4. Security assurance - Important 5. Training support - Less important 6. Consultancy oriented service - Less important 7. Offering of new cloud computing services and possibilities - Important 8. Provider proximity and knowledge of our needs and expectations - Important 9. Joint R&D activity and collaboration - Less important Add any other activities/aspects if necessary:....................................................................................

11.6 PRICES AND PAYMENT MODEL

28. What is your opinion about the unitary price that Helic is proposing to charge for the

software service offered from the cloud? 1. It is fair attending to the value provided 2. It is high according to what I had expected 3. It is low attending to the value provided


56

Additional comments: 1.000 € is quite high.

29. What is your opinion about the charging method that Helic is proposing to implement for the software service offered from the cloud? 1. It is adequate and responds to the characteristics of a cloud based software service 2. It is worthy for a cloud model but other charging alternatives would also be desired 3. It does not raise any added-value and does not take advantage of a cloud based service

possibilities Additional comments: But not variable according to the complexity of the project because companies cannot afford that. An option is perhaps to offer 3 different fixed prices for 3 different versions of the software.

30. With numerical marks, being 1 the highest and 3 the lowest, specify how you value each of the following charging methods when moving to a cloud based software service 1. Pay-per-use 2. Flat rate 3. License subscription 4. Other

Add any other charging method if necessary: This is the way for the cloud.

11.7 SOFTWARE SERVICES WORKFLOWS OFFERED BY THE “CLOUDFLOW” PLATFORM

31. In the context of the usage that your organization makes of engineering/manufacturing

oriented software, would you demand different software services/functionalities provided separately from different software products to be connected or integrated in a single software solution? 1. No, never 2. Yes, but punctually for some very specific applications 3. Yes, increasingly 4. Yes, definitely


32. Do you consider that having access to a platform offering such a type of integral solution and connected services and workflows your organization may incur in resources, efforts, time and money saving? 1. Not really 2. Yes, but only for some very specific applications 3. Yes, increasingly 4. Yes, definitely



57

33. Would you be willing to pay an increased and fair unitary price in order to make use of such a type of integral software service in the cloud allowing workflows among different software solutions accessed through a single platform? 1. Not at all 2. We are not able to valorise such a type of service 3. Yes, but punctually for some very specific applications 4. Yes, but under certain conditions (please specify) 5. Yes, but firstly testing the solution 6. Yes, increasingly 7. Yes, definitely

Additional comments: If security is assured.

Documents

EXPERIMENT DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION - CORDIS · avl avl list gmbh nabladot nabladot sl biocurve biocurve unizar universidad de zaragoza btech barcelona technical center sl csuc